The thread about Tao got me thinking about this, especially about the complementary forces.
Traditionally in Western culture, the two concepts of masculinity and femininity are seen as diametrically opposite characteristics of gender, linked intrinsically to sex. It’s assumed that they exist on a continuum, that if you are more masculine you must be less feminine, and vice versa. Any cursory look into a handful of varying cultures will show you that these ideas of what men and women are like aren’t rooted in biology, but rather cultural ideas. So it reasonably follows that, as gender psychologists have been saying for awhile, traits involved in masculinity and femininity can and do exist within the same individual without impinging on each other. Some people, like myself, show highly the mental characteristics of both masculinity and femininity, while some people might show very little of either. Current popular theory, backed up by some research, seems to suggest that being balanced and androgynous (mentally, that is) is the healthier set of characteristics to have, whereas having far too much of one without much of the other can be mentally and emotionally harmful.
So, how do we think this relates to our rewilding? How might awareness of these concepts help us to build healthy cultures? What will it mean for traditional gender roles in hunting and gathering societies?